This is where Mayor Schmoke, the new mayor of Baltimore concerned with violence on the streets, would say he believes by taking the profit out from the bums and killers on the street and giving the profit to the pharmaceuticals and allowing them under some drug stamp or Medicaid program-you know, we can find money for jails when we cannot find it for education or homes. Mr. WHITFIELD. Or for treatment.

Mr. RANGEL. If it looks like you are controlling them, you find the money. We found the money for methadone, a highly addictive drug, allegedly to wean people off heroin. Forget it; it is criminal. Suppose we expanded that so you could get, now, in your neighborhood clinic, according to the recommendations made by Mayor Schmoke, cocaine from one doctor or methadone from one doctor or heroin from another doctor. Drug addicts being what they are, do you think that would eliminate the street crime that attracted the attention of people?

Mr. WHITFIELD. Of course it would not. If people are worrying about street crime, they need to look at the body of people who historically have been responsible for that street crime.

If it is not heroin, cocaine, it will be something else, because you have that one group of people who are making their own response to their conditions. The drug is not necessarily the problem. The drug is the response to a whole panorama of other problems.

The one thing I do not want to do, I am trying not to make this a class issue, because I do recognize that whether this legalization goes forth or not will depend on the people who are largely not affected by drug abuse. Those most affected will not be out there voting. Those people who are going to vote are thinking about getting that threat off television and out of my neighborhood and they may vote for this. But I want them to think about their youngsters who are also at risk.

I have also been a housing director at one of the major universities in this area. I have seen these youngsters of privilege that can be rescued after five or six years completing a four-year degree on their parents ability to contribute a chair or something else to a university to keep their child on campus with their drug abuse, opposed to outside the boundary of that campus.

as

I want everybody to recognize, wherever you come from in the social and economic stratum, the danger is there. The more privilege you have, the more you can hide it but it is still there. There is a greater danger of these people becoming our doctor, lawyer or politician. There is no stratum of life in America that is immune to it.

I am not wishing this on anybody in the Congress, but I would not be at all surprised or shocked if a year or two or tomorrow a scandal might come out that one of our Representatives or Senators was abusing illegal drugs, because this is the reality of America. It is not just a poor persons problem.

Mrs. WHITFIELD. Let me say, in terms of legalization of drugs decreasing our crime rate, if drugs were legal do you really believe that Reboks would be any less important in the minds of our kids? Do you believe that all the advertising that comes on TV, the way they glamorize everything, the designer clothes, hairstyles, cars, jeeps do you think this is going to be any less attractive to our

young people? No, no. If drugs were legal, they would not get the money by selling drugs, but they would go in another direction.

It would do nothing to deter the crime rate in our society today, nothing at all. It is where America places their values. It is what we expose our kids to on a day-to-day basis. All the time parents cannot instill those values when there is peer pressure out there that our kids are confronted with on a day-to-day basis, peer pressure that makes our kids want to do what the next child is doing, just to fit in, who want to be like Miami Vice stars.

So when you look at decriminalization of drugs, believe me, it is not going to do anything to lower the crime rate. You need to come up with something different.

Mr. RANGEL. Listen to this. Mayor Schmoke would say that he does not want to give drugs to non-users, and that he would have the requirement that persons have to be addicted for one year to become eligible to enter a methadone treatment program.

Based on our experience, unless the drug centers are open 24 hours a day, or if Senator Galiber, in his candor, said that you can get as much as you want like alcohol, which you can buy by the truckload today, wouldn't these addicts going to the federally supported drug centers want to get drugs outside of the legal limits? It is possible that the Mayor is suggesting that the patient would be able to get all he wants from the doctor?

We assume that the doctor is going to cut it off. Does the cocaine or heroin addict say, well, that is all the doctor gives me, I have to wait for my next appointment?

Mrs. WHITFIELD. There would still be a black market for drugs. Mr. WHITFIELD. I want to take Mr. Galiber's point one step further.

Mr. RANGEL. This is Mayor Schmoke. Senator Galiber has only one limitation, like with alcohol, if the person comes in and appears to have had too much.

Mr. WHITFIELD. The same as you have after-hour clubs when the bars and liquor stores close and on Sundays in many neighborhoods, like I know in New York there used to be places where they could buy liquor illegally.

Mr. RANGEL. I have to interrupt you. I used to be a part of that. That was because we did not have enough money to store up on this stuff. If you get the Mayor with his legalized stuff and the Senator with his open market, we won't have to go to after-hours clubs because now you can have all the liquor you want in your house, so you would not have to worry under Senator Galiber's program. Under Mayor Schmoke's program you will have to have it after it is dispensed in the clinics and hospitals.

Mr. WHITFIELD. With alcohol abuse they are starting to try to prosecute people who allow people who drink too much and then go out and drive and kill someone.

If the purveyors of this drug were allowing someone to use too much and they OD'd, would they be prosecuted for contributing to the death?

Mr. RANGEL. Not if they bought it at a retail store. I am certain the same laws that govern alcoholism, if a doctor was to prescribe a dose of alcohol to an alcoholic, I think the same rulings would apply.

The Senator is a lawyer. Stick around.

Mr. Dornan.

Mr. DORNAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I am sorry I missed yesterday's session. I was on the Floor all day with legislative duties.

I picked up the packet at the end of the day, including Mayor Schmoke's testimony. I have been reading all the testimony today.

I was particularly impressed with Mr. and Mrs. Whitfield's testimony. I read all the way through Mayor Schmoke's testimony about the hopelessness that we have lost the war. But I agree with our Chairman that the war has never been fully engaged.

I know on one stream, which is not Senator Galiber's position or Mayor Schmoke's position or even NORML's position, sometimes I feel it is the Libertarians who say we are against all this destruction, but it is your call, back off, you are going to end up in a mess. Mr. DORNAN. Where I find people drawn to Libertarianism_on economic matters, taxes, which is the main draw to their party, but they don't seem to make the connection when people end up in sanitariums, if not dead which is being paid for by American taxpayers. There is no such thing as a free lunch or a free joint.

Now we have seen in tragic instances, solutions on the far right of the spectrum, on what to do about drugs in which you execute people who are smuggling small amounts, as happened in Malaysia with two young Australians. The President, Margaret Thatcher, and the Pope weighed in and asked Malaysia, to please not execute these two young men. They were executed. And guess what? That type of extreme punishment, similar to chopping off poor people's hands for shoplifting in Saudi Arabia, has worked in Malaysia. They haven't had much problem with drug smuggling through there lately. It may not hold, but when you execute two young men in the prime of their life, say in their 20s, for smuggling small amounts, it seems to get the message across. But nobody is going to sanction that in our country or any of the countries of what we generally refer to as the free world, Asian or Arab countries excepted.

But somewhere in this spectrum of solutions to curbing the demand side is a formula that works, that is reasonable, that we have not yet tried. The chairman, a Democrat from New York, believes this, this representative from California, born in Manhattan, believes that. And I believe that is what the drug bill showed last week. Our chairman pounds on the Republican Administration very hard, but always takes time to graciously compliment Nancy Reagan. I defend the administration, with some criticism. But our chairman doesn't accept my theory, that liberal permissiveness for 20 years, which I was battling on television 20 years ago as a public affairs host, said "turn on, tune in, and dropout," or "if it feels good, do it." The Libertarians have only recently adopted legalization as their philosophy, together with articulate ACLU lawyers weighing-in in favor of protecting pornography, another disease of the streets, and liberal permissive attitudes about narcotics. But I don't care who is at fault. That is something about which we can disagree.

My chairman wants to get tough, I want to get tough, and we have to at least try to dampen the demand side. We need to work

the Customs, the radars, the Coast Guard, with Naval assistance, to try to capture the mother ships bringing drugs into our waters on those fast million dollar "cigarette speed boats". I don't give a darn about Noriega any more. His days are numbered just as are Namphy's in Haiti. Time will take care of that guy. Namphy is probably not involved in the business of killing our kids any more because he is under the spotlight.

The demand side policy now seems to belong to the liberals in this Congress, but this conservative has not given up that fight.

I was in Jacksonville a week ago Monday, out with four police cars following a beat-up Camaro, with a policewoman, 24, looked 15, a police officer 21, looked 16, in this car buying crack from 12year-old kids on bicycles. One little kid is lying in the dust with handcuffs on.

I said, "What is your name, son?" "Bobby, sir." "Bobby, where did you get the crack?" "Jefferson Street across town." "What did it cost you? What did it cost you?" "Five bucks." "What are you selling it for?" "You got the $20 bill, you know, it is $20." "Does your mother know where you are?" "No. sir. She would whip me." I said, "Are you going to be back here?" "No, sir. I thought you were going to shoot me." "You are not going to spend any time in jail, let's face it. You know that, don't you?" "Yes, sir." This little 12-year-old will be back on his bicycle when he is 13, 14, 15.

I thought about the legislation argument, standing there in this poor housing project in Jacksonville, Florida, and I thought to myself, would legalizing it cut the cost? I said, wait a minute, we are not going to let 12-year-old kids in on this. NORML won't. The Libertarian party would say you can have laws to protect the minors. We are back to government regulation, which our chairman pounds on relentlessly which Mayor Schmoke and I am sure the New York Senator is going to agree with. Legalization would put the government in the business of purity control, advertising control, product control, but Customs would still be out there trying to interdict the Black market as will the Coast Guard.

As Mrs. Whitfield said, we are wasting precious energy debating what the government's role should be when we should be trying to wage the war against drugs. So I guess we are at the end of this panel's testimony. Since I wasn't here earlier, I am reading your testimony now.

If anybody wants to comment on what I said, I have run out of time.

Mr. WHITFIELD. This may be out of context from what you said, but the gentleman sitting next to you before said in waging this war, we needed to go into the countries, the various countries, and do this, this and that.

Mr. DORNAN. Mr. Shaw, a former mayor.

Mr. WHITFIELD. As he was saying that, I do not think at least for that part of the population that feels as if they don't have any way into the system, I don't think the war has ever started there, and I am not sure if the government is willing to start the war there.

And as far as penalties, you mentioned about cutting off the two kids' heads in some place, I said before the kids that I am talking about that I know, that I am dealing with, they have been so brutalized and they see violence, that you can't up the ante on them.

The only thing that can be done is a time thing where their attitudes can be changed. Because I am telling you these kids do not care. I know, because I was one of them. If you put me in jail, I would say, yes, and I can do it standing on one hand, and if you are going to kill me, I am going to kill you, don't take what belongs to me. That is the way they have to live out there. You cannot sell drugs out in that street if you let someone else take one ounce of drug away from you. Death isn't going to be the answer. So you kill them.

But I tell you one thing, the people that are investing the money to bring it into this country, if you start executing them, then you might have a change because they are afraid of going to jail. They are afraid of being killed. The people that are investing the biggest amount of money in bringing these drugs into this country, they do not have to suffer some of the penalties.

Mr. DORNAN. Does all or part of your panel agree that rich people, meaning that one to two percent of our society in which money just is different than it is to all the rest of us, have so much money that a budget on the personal level means nothing. Aren't rich people always going to be able to buy their own self destruction? Are we ever going to stop rich people from buying cocaine and bringing it in on their personal jet without much chance of them getting caught? We can't let our laws be driven by anything that the super, rich and famous can get away with.

I like it when you say it is a class problem. It utterly destroys the poor economic classes, and it guts the middle class. But sometimes I think that the super rich have almost as tough a road through life as the poorest of the poor. As Jesus said, "It is harder to get into heaven than it is to put a camel through the eye of a needle."

I am not going to write laws based on what the super-rich can get away with while jeopardizing the disadvantaged and middle class of this country.

Mr. MILLER. We need a reasoned policy, and you know that with Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, there is not a bottomless pit of money. The bill that I provided to the staff and to your chairman today, which I asked be made part of the record, provides a means to raise some money to deal with these problems. The Whitfields are right about people going in there, yes, we will give you your methadone, we don't have a program for you. I know from my own personal experience of people who wait three, four, six, eight months to get into a program, they've got no place to go. Let's separate one drug that is not so harmful from the others, let's use the generated funds and save money to help the people you were addressing and help those little young 12-year-old kids not have to go into the street to do that. Let's be rational, let's be willing to make a change, let's look at it from a different perspective, and I think the availability, control, tax and regulation of marijuana is not going to create the problems.

You heard the Whitfields say they knew people who started on it and went harder, they knew people that did not start on it and went harder. Let's be reasonable and let's work together.

Mr. RANGEL. As we end this panel, I hope the Whitfields would be kind enough to let me know more about their program. I would